Who would ever think years ago that we'd be debating this with any given bombast who has no clear sense of critical comparative thinking going on under their red cap. Now, I'm sitting here in the wee hours of the morning calling off work for the second day in a row [[due to an ear infection) pondering the matter as it applies to comparing things in their full scope.

Yet, for what I once thought was "fake news" as it applies to anything like "Pizzagate" [[and I want to commend everyone on DY for not passing along that certain topical flatulence, so pardon me for even being the one who "dealt it" with "passing" reference.) or insane theories about Sandy Hook being a "false flag", I've seen radical conservatives spin and use that label on anything that not only criticizes or fact checks Trump's more spurious statements and ideologies but also the media that just depicts him in his raw moments of contradicting errancy-by his own words.

While some may want to criticize the New York Times or Washington Post as being "fake", there is another source being targeted [[yes, an article by the Post). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.554733d53849


One doesn't have to be a great media analyst to see that the news one would get from PBS, Democracy Now, or many foreign outlets is far more detailed, incisive, and superior than the selective, edited pablum we get from mainstream outlets in the US.


Going by that---If we were to give credence to the argument that mainstream, corporate media is "corrupt" [[something both sides have been known to state-and only most recently with the right, which normally supported large, corporate media in the past. Also, I've always gotten the impression that most folks on DY mistrust even their local news outlets seeing the complete lack of reference to them as sources as compared to other forums I've read. Seems to me folks on DY at one point were more keen to cite and discuss local current events not pertaining to things like buildings and development.), then why would a political figurehead reach beyond that and target news outlets like PBS [[and the others I mentioned above) that have better integrity going for him?


Sounds like clear suppression to me.


What is "fake" to him?-clip after clip showing the world how he conducts himself? Nothing is more damning than his own behavior.


Besides what is "not fake" to him? Bellicose blogger news coming from guys just as flippant in their reactions to a whisper of a rumor as he is with his late night tweet sprees?

Speaking of PBS, there is a long article where librarians and history-minded scholars feel they must make a stand regarding Trump's recent executive orders and the cloud of disinformation that tends to gather around justifying Trump's actions. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...-news-problem/and http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/libr...cutive-orders/.

Keep in mind that whatever shreds of integrity and importance that remains still invested in media is quickly becoming an endangered thing, as this John Oliver clip I often cite will outline-
and folks who study history as it applied to places like Communist Russia, North Korea, or Nazi Germany would tell you that any restriction to access of quality information is not a good thing.